Quoted from LC This thread should really be called: I'll keep coming back to this...

Fore sure.

Neither side is EVER going to agree so it's really just two sides having their say with no actual chance of swaying the other or convincing them of a point. Sure there may be a little give and take here and there on fringe issues but on core issues there will NEVER be any agreement.

I'd say it's pointless and it probably is but it's good that people can discuss things in a mostly civil way even if there is no chance of any side changing what they think. I also think that a lot of the time it becomes a point scoring exercise so people come back to the thread to get in the final say, but then the other side has to have the final say... but then the other side has to have the final say. Then they kinda agree on something barely relevant to the main issue and then go right back at it. Be lying if I said it wasn't fun to watch, but everyone can see the cycle, right?

I think the fundamental issues are looked at in such different ways that each side almost finds it impossible to grasp that the other can believe what they believe.

I think it's great to debate and for people to have their say, the issue is always censoring of ideas and opinions and that is happening more and more.

Just my thoughts... continue

Quoted from Warren Fore sure. Neither side is EVER going to agree so it's really just two sides having their say with no actual chance of swaying the other or convincing them of a point. Sure there may be a little give and take here and there on fringe issues but on core issues there will NEVER be any agreement. I'd say it's pointless and it probably is but it's good that people can discuss things in a mostly civil way even if there is no chance of any side changing what they think. I also think that a lot of the time it becomes a point scoring exercise so people come back to the thread to get in the final say, but then the other side has to have the final say... but then the other side has to have the final say. Then they kinda agree on something barely relevant to the main issue and then go right back at it. Be lying if I said it wasn't fun to watch, but everyone can see the cycle, right? I think the fundamental issues are looked at in such different ways that each side almost finds it impossible to grasp that the other can believe what they believe. I think it's great to debate and for people to have their say, the issue is always censoring of ideas and opinions and that is happening more and more. Just my thoughts... continue

Start a thread on whether its acceptable to have images and special fonts on title pages and we'll all go there

Quoted from eldave1 Start a thread on whether its acceptable to have images and special fonts on title pages and we'll all go there

That's never acceptable!!!!!!!!!!  

But I'm coming over to the idea. I very much liked it in Michael's last script. I can't see it being something I'd do in the future as I personally like a standard looking script but if people can do it and pull it off, go for it I say. I used to be a hell of a lot more hard-line on a variety of screenwriting 'issues'. I think now my standard is that if it affects the read then I probably won't like it, if it enhances it whether that be through an orphan, an aside, a fancy title page or super, a VO or a flashback, then go for your life.

Anyway... didn't mean to hijack the woke thread.

Quoted from Warren That's never acceptable!!!!!!!!!!   But I'm coming over to the idea. I very much liked it in Michael's last script. I can't see it being something I'd do in the future as I personally like a standard looking script but if people can do it and pull it off, go for it I say. I used to be a hell of a lot more hard-line on a variety of screenwriting 'issues'. I think now my standard is that if it affects the read then I probably won't like it, if it enhances it whether that be through an orphan, an aside, a fancy title page or super, a VO or a flashback, then go for your life. Anyway... didn't mean to hijack the woke thread.

I think 10 years from now the title page will be the movie poster. I also think all scripts will be audio as well as visual. But of course, no orphans

Quoted from eldave1 But of course, no orphans

Of course... everyone knows that  

Quoted from eldave1 This is the thing... those first two things are indeed woke. And therein lies our problem. I do not cede to you the ground to define it nor you to me. We both could post dozens of links supporting our views on the origins and meaning of woke and will never reach consensus.  So, the general debate on woke as a good or bad thing really can go nowhere. I do know this. The Right uses the term as a pejorative - much like they did with socialism when it came to health care and tax hikes.  They also escalate the intensity of the impact. They do this with a lot of things. e.g., Dr Suess and Mr. Potato head the evil residue of cancel culture while not recognizing things such as banning gays from the military or from getting married was a far more devasting and impactful form of cancel culture.  So.... I've become a bit sensitive to the everything wrong with woke diatribe-filled videos and articles when I know many of them are really intended to be everything wrong with the Left. SO - we ain't going to agree on what woke means. Yet - I think we probably agree largely on all the specific issues. e.g., neither of us would advocate for race-based selection processes. Neither of us would ignore the impact of racism in the criminal justice system.  So, it seems to me that we agree on most things other than the definition. So, if we can agree on a term like "extreme wokeisn - or dysfunctional wokeism - we probably would find areas of disagreement. It would be here - I am not alarmed or all that concerned about extreme wokeism because I think it has a relatively short life cycle and believe it will die a natural death. Capitalism is just too strong a force not to make it so. So - back to the original video. My view remains the same - I thought it was pretty much overblown hackery.  Yeah - there were some cringe-worthy woke moments in movies - none of which are going to destroy the industry as there are ten-fold more non-woke roles and characters and I thought many of the examples cited by the video author were just flat out wrong.  She sets out this premise - that a female protag/hero must earn her stripes in order to be valid and "non-woke". I say bullshit. That is an absolute standard never applied to male protags/heroes - so why women?  She wouldn't have batted an eye at the Laura Dern character had it been the exact same dialogue uttered by a male.  Basically, I thought it was weak sauce at best.

Both ideas literally predate woke thinking!

Those ideas (i.e. the two points you mentioned) have been kicking about since the end of slavery. That’s not really contestable.

So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism.

Quoted from Warren Fore sure. Neither side is EVER going to agree so it's really just two sides having their say with no actual chance of swaying the other or convincing them of a point. Sure there may be a little give and take here and there on fringe issues but on core issues there will NEVER be any agreement. I'd say it's pointless and it probably is but it's good that people can discuss things in a mostly civil way even if there is no chance of any side changing what they think. I also think that a lot of the time it becomes a point scoring exercise so people come back to the thread to get in the final say, but then the other side has to have the final say... but then the other side has to have the final say. Then they kinda agree on something barely relevant to the main issue and then go right back at it. Be lying if I said it wasn't fun to watch, but everyone can see the cycle, right? I think the fundamental issues are looked at in such different ways that each side almost finds it impossible to grasp that the other can believe what they believe. I think it's great to debate and for people to have their say, the issue is always censoring of ideas and opinions and that is happening more and more. Just my thoughts... continue

Yeah, there’s not much movement, but there are facts not being accepted as facts (i.e. the roots of woke-ism), which means the thread becomes as you described.

I think Dave wouldn’t deny he likes playing Devil’s advocate, which is fine. Just find it odd when he routinely describes not valuing the ideas at all. Yet won’t accept the reality of how they came to pass.

But it is all good natured. And is basically a rehash of conversations happening all over the globe.

And these ideas are designed to divide in perpetuity. Precisely because the calls to change society have no measurable goals. Or stated goals are so obviously divisive and illiberal, there’s no chance of them being implemented.

An example of a solution that is divisive and illiberal being defund the police.

Quoted from Andrew Both ideas literally predate woke thinking! Those ideas (i.e. the two points you mentioned) have been kicking about since the end of slavery. That’s not really contestable. So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism.

Both ideas pre-date extreme wokeism , and I think you know that. I hate to do this because it is boring and tedious - but I see no alternative:

The term wide awake, used in 1854 by New York City's nativist paramilitarists in 1860 became adopted among supporters of Abraham Lincoln.[Lincoln's Republican Party cultivated the Wide Awakes movement primarily to oppose the spread of slavery

Black American folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly, uses the phrase near the end of the recording of his 1938 song "Scottsboro Boys", which tells the story of nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, saying: "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there—best stay woke, keep their eyes open".

J. Saunders Redding recorded a comment from an African American United Mine Workers official in 1940, stating: "Let me tell you buddy. Waking up is a damn sight harder than going to sleep, but we'll stay woke up longer.

By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware', especially in a political or cultural sense. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley.

Woke had gained more political connotations by 1971, when the play Garvey Lives! by Barry Beckham included the line: "I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon' stay woke. And I'm gon help him wake up other black folk

In the 21st-century's first decade, use of woke encompassed the earlier meaning with an added sense of being "alert to social and/or racial discrimination and injustice".

In support of expressions by fellow entertainers in solidarity with members of the Russian feminist rock group Pussy Riot (imprisoned in 2012 for a punk protest staged, according the Washington Post, with intention to wake up the public to women's suppression  Badu tweeted: "Truth requires no belief. Stay woke. Watch closely. #FreePussyRiot"

Following the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, The phrase stay woke was used by activists of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement to urge awareness of police abuses. BET's documentary "Stay Woke," which covered the movement, aired in May 2016.

The term received an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

It was only in 2017 that the word “woke” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was defined as “being ‘aware’ or ‘well-informed’ in a political or cultural sense”.

It eventually evolved into an all-encompassing term to describe leftist political ideology, used as a “shorthand for people on the left” to signal progressiveness, but weaponized by those on the right as a Like phrases before it - such as “politically correct”, “social justice warrior” and “cancel culture” - “woke” has become a toxicised term used by alt-right and politically conservative groups to insult people on the left.

So, it's been around forever through several interactions including the Right's pejorative use of it.

So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism.

This is just silly.  Woke, in its truest sense, was a collection of valid ideas (like the two I mentioned) centered around racial and social justice and encapsulated in the term woke.  It doesn't invalidate the term any more than several of the tenets of Christianity being encapsulated by liberalism.  In fact, it's quite the inverse. Woke had a specific meeting for a century. So it's like you adding characteristics to it that don't apply and thus redefine its true meaning.  

Quoted Text Yeah, there’s not much movement, but there are facts not being accepted as facts (i.e. the roots of woke-ism), which means the thread becomes as you described.

I agree - I think you should finally accept my factually correct definition of woke.

Quoted Text I think Dave wouldn’t deny he likes playing Devil’s advocate, which is fine.

He kind of does. He's retired. Not like he has to work for a living - so why not. You can't play golf and poker 24 hours a day.

Quoted Text Just find it odd when he routinely describes not valuing the ideas at all. Yet won’t accept the reality of how they came to pass.

See above

Quoted Text But it is all good natured. And is basically a rehash of conversations happening all over the globe.

Concur

Quoted from Andrew An example of a solution that is divisive and illiberal being defund the police.

Yeah.... the phrase was really unfortunate as there are some otherwise worthwhile areas of examination under its banner (e.g., should responses to mental health situations be handled by law enforcement or, should we shift that funding to mental health professionals. etc).

It's like having an objective of population control and labeling the mission as "Kill all the babies."

Prominent and reasonable politicians on the Left should have immediately distanced themselves from the phrase (rather than trying to explain it) and re-lableled it with something akin to Reform The Police.

Quoted from eldave1 Yeah.... the phrase was really unfortunate as there are some otherwise worthwhile areas of examination under its banner (e.g., should responses to mental health situations be handled by law enforcement or, should we shift that funding to mental health professionals. etc).

Off topic: The Sheriff or our fine county was quoted a couple of years back: "I currently run the largest mental health facility in the state of Kansas. It's called the Johnson County Jail."

He was serious.

It's a real problem. And, yes, addressing that issue was definitely made harder by the Defund The Police messaging. The right will be hammering the left with that phrase for years to come. But, that's politics, and we brought it on ourselves -- regardless of what 95% of liberals believe (it's not defund the police in the way it's represented by the right). The sad part is: it's a serious problem that should be addressed, but won't be.

Funny thing is... on that issue... there should be broad consensus. Which political side wants law enforcement handling mental health calls? Neither. At least, I don't think.

Now... I return you to your original thread...

Quoted from PKCardinal Off topic: The Sheriff or our fine county was quoted a couple of years back: "I currently run the largest mental health facility in the state of Kansas. It's called the Johnson County Jail." He was serious. It's a real problem. And, yes, addressing that issue was definitely made harder by the Defund The Police messaging. The right will be hammering the left with that phrase for years to come. But, that's politics, and we brought it on ourselves -- regardless of what 95% of liberals believe (it's not defund the police in the way it's represented by the right). The sad part is: it's a serious problem that should be addressed, but won't be. Funny thing is... on that issue... there should be broad consensus. Which political side wants law enforcement handling mental health calls? Neither. At least, I don't think. Now... I return you to your original thread...

Pretty much the same situation here in L.A. - cops/Sheriffs handle the mentally ill. And they are ill-equipped to do so.

Quoted from eldave1 Both ideas pre-date extreme wokeism , and I think you know that. I hate to do this because it is boring and tedious - but I see no alternative: The term wide awake, used in 1854 by New York City's nativist paramilitarists in 1860 became adopted among supporters of Abraham Lincoln.[Lincoln's Republican Party cultivated the Wide Awakes movement primarily to oppose the spread of slavery Black American folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly, uses the phrase near the end of the recording of his 1938 song "Scottsboro Boys", which tells the story of nine black teenagers accused of raping two white women, saying: "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there—best stay woke, keep their eyes open". J. Saunders Redding recorded a comment from an African American United Mine Workers official in 1940, stating: "Let me tell you buddy. Waking up is a damn sight harder than going to sleep, but we'll stay woke up longer. By the mid-20th century, woke had come to mean 'well-informed' or 'aware', especially in a political or cultural sense. The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest such usage to a 1962 New York Times Magazine article titled "If You're Woke You Dig It" by African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley. Woke had gained more political connotations by 1971, when the play Garvey Lives! by Barry Beckham included the line: "I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon' stay woke. And I'm gon help him wake up other black folk In the 21st-century's first decade, use of woke encompassed the earlier meaning with an added sense of being "alert to social and/or racial discrimination and injustice". In support of expressions by fellow entertainers in solidarity with members of the Russian feminist rock group Pussy Riot (imprisoned in 2012 for a punk protest staged, according the Washington Post, with intention to wake up the public to women's suppression  Badu tweeted: "Truth requires no belief. Stay woke. Watch closely. #FreePussyRiot" Following the shooting of Michael Brown in 2014, The phrase stay woke was used by activists of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement to urge awareness of police abuses. BET's documentary "Stay Woke," which covered the movement, aired in May 2016. The term received an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017. It was only in 2017 that the word “woke” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, and was defined as “being ‘aware’ or ‘well-informed’ in a political or cultural sense”. It eventually evolved into an all-encompassing term to describe leftist political ideology, used as a “shorthand for people on the left” to signal progressiveness, but weaponized by those on the right as a Like phrases before it - such as “politically correct”, “social justice warrior” and “cancel culture” - “woke” has become a toxicised term used by alt-right and politically conservative groups to insult people on the left. So, it's been around forever through several interactions including the Right's pejorative use of it. So it’s like saying I start a body of ideas under the banner of spoke, and then add those two ideas to my body of thinking and then refer to those ideas as spoke-ism. This is just silly.  Woke, in its truest sense, was a collection of valid ideas (like the two I mentioned) centered around racial and social justice and encapsulated in the term woke.  It doesn't invalidate the term any more than several of the tenets of Christianity being encapsulated by liberalism.  In fact, it's quite the inverse. Woke had a specific meeting for a century. So it's like you adding characteristics to it that don't apply and thus redefine its true meaning.

To be fair, I've addressed this previously. This doesn't tell us anything new. It looks like a quick Google!

There was a a mindset that was woke, but it was an empty vacuum, with no real body of ideas applicable to the challenges. This was when woke became woke as we understand it today. Not extreme wokeism, but wokeism. This body of ideas is distinct from a mindset of being alert to injustice as a means of navigating life.

The body of ideas isn't about being alert to injustice; it's about radially reforming society with a fig leaf of being about 'social justice'.

This is just language back and forth. Wokeism, the applied set of ideas, and wokeism the mindset are not the same thing. Yes, they share the label, and yes, you can argue extremism of a hard-to-pin down term, but it's all wasted energy.

What matters of a body of ideas dividing people. Label it what you want, but I'll be calling it wokeism.

Quoted from eldave1 Yeah.... the phrase was really unfortunate as there are some otherwise worthwhile areas of examination under its banner (e.g., should responses to mental health situations be handled by law enforcement or, should we shift that funding to mental health professionals. etc). It's like having an objective of population control and labeling the mission as "Kill all the babies." Prominent and reasonable politicians on the Left should have immediately distanced themselves from the phrase (rather than trying to explain it) and re-lableled it with something akin to Reform The Police.

100%.

This is an example of when the core idea underneath is explicit. Usually it's implicit and hid behind some nice language to dupe people too lazy to explore beyond the surface.

Defund the police isn't a phrase. It's a clear and measured objective that is entirely consistent with ideas that seek to remodel society and take advantage of the current moral panic.